The NHS.

[Softus]

Do I take it you all agree that the NHS are wasting money by having meetings in private hotels then?

I agree, but I think you ought to start a new topic rather than hijack this one

 

[splinter]

Stop avoiding the questions I've asked of you.

If an employee is off duty and injures someone because they chose to continue working in an unofficial capacity - who is liable?

If the employee is injured doing work that is not authorised by their employer are they covered by workers compo?

Would the Unions allow workers to work without pay?

Well?


joe

The employer would be liable under the principles of Vicarious liability. this makes the employer liable for anything their employee does within the scope of their employment. What this means is that unless a person does something they are not employed to do, eg if the nurse tried to fix an electrical fault and hurt someone or an electrician tried to treat a patient, they wouldn't be personally liable for a mistake.

In this context, ie a hospital the nurse would still be on the work premises and acting within the scope of his or her employment. The fact that they were not getting paid for it would be a separate matter between them and their employer and not relevant to the issue of liability between the hospital and it's patient if the nurse acted negligently. The hospital would owe a duty of care to the patient and the fact that the nurse wasn't getting paid would probably increase the liability of the hospital because it could be argued that by failing to adequately staff and run it's wards the hospital increased the risk to the patient

The nurse if injured doing work that was unauthorised, eg fixing a leaking pipe wouldn't be entitled to compensation because it is outside the scope of her employment. However working unpaid overtime because of understaffing is not unauthorised work. The nurses professional duty to the patients probably overrides her obligations to the hospital to leave at the end of her shift. In fact by forcing the nurse to remain on duty the hospital might increase it's liablity to the nurse for any injury. She would argue that the hospital had failed to create a safe working enviroment by forcing her into a situation where the risk to the patients prevented her leaving thus creating a situation where due to her fatigue she was more likely to have an accident. That would be in addition to any other evidence of liability on the hospitals part, ie a double whammy

So to summarise, everyone would sue the a**e off the hospital. The nurse and patient would retire to the Bahamas (or more likely Skegness) with their compensation and the tax payer would foot most of the bill

Joe,
Tis post answers you're questions,for some reason you have ignored it .
I also read through reams of infomation on the internet and it seems that nurses in the UK work a average of 6.5 hours a week unpaid overtime .THis is known in the NHS as "goodwill"and if the nurses got "arsey" about things they could withdraw this "goodwill",lucky for us and their employers they have not yet.

On a sadder note,I do believe a persons GP and 2 psycreatric doctors have to assess a person for sectioning ,it would be open to bribery,influance if it was just one person

 

[Softus]

Do you know nuffink?

Why do you persistently take the antagonistic stance of claiming that someone who disagrees with you knows nothing?

When the argument is lost - the abuse begins.

And then it gets deleted and you get scolded, viz:

I would like to know why his post hasn't been deleted and mine has? Well?


joe

Moderator Note

Your post was deleted because the way it was worded was offensive and deliberately so in order to provoke an argumentative reply. You seem incapable of taking part in a discussion in a way that doesn't insult or wind people up, despite several warnings over the past weeks. You seem intent on spoiling subjects which are being debated by posting in the manner you do. It will not be tolerated, so i suggest you take on board the comments and change the way you post. The alternative is that posts which in our view are provocative or fall outside of the rules will simply be deleted. I hope that explains the stance we are taking and it wont be explained any further or again

 

[Softus]

...it would be open to bribery,influance if it was just one person

Don't get maudlin just yet splinter - I've got a white coat and a stethoscope...

 

[joe-90]

Stop avoiding the questions I've asked of you.

If an employee is off duty and injures someone because they chose to continue working in an unofficial capacity - who is liable?

If the employee is injured doing work that is not authorised by their employer are they covered by workers compo?

Would the Unions allow workers to work without pay?

Well?


joe

The employer would be liable under the principles of Vicarious liability. this makes the employer liable for anything their employee does within the scope of their employment. What this means is that unless a person does something they are not employed to do, eg if the nurse tried to fix an electrical fault and hurt someone or an electrician tried to treat a patient, they wouldn't be personally liable for a mistake.

In this context, ie a hospital the nurse would still be on the work premises and acting within the scope of his or her employment. The fact that they were not getting paid for it would be a separate matter between them and their employer and not relevant to the issue of liability between the hospital and it's patient if the nurse acted negligently. The hospital would owe a duty of care to the patient and the fact that the nurse wasn't getting paid would probably increase the liability of the hospital because it could be argued that by failing to adequately staff and run it's wards the hospital increased the risk to the patient

The nurse if injured doing work that was unauthorised, eg fixing a leaking pipe wouldn't be entitled to compensation because it is outside the scope of her employment. However working unpaid overtime because of understaffing is not unauthorised work. The nurses professional duty to the patients probably overrides her obligations to the hospital to leave at the end of her shift. In fact by forcing the nurse to remain on duty the hospital might increase it's liablity to the nurse for any injury. She would argue that the hospital had failed to create a safe working enviroment by forcing her into a situation where the risk to the patients prevented her leaving thus creating a situation where due to her fatigue she was more likely to have an accident. That would be in addition to any other evidence of liability on the hospitals part, ie a double whammy

So to summarise, everyone would sue the a**e off the hospital. The nurse and patient would retire to the Bahamas (or more likely Skegness) with their compensation and the tax payer would foot most of the bill

Joe,
Tis post answers you're questions,for some reason you have ignored it .
I also read through reams of infomation on the internet and it seems that nurses in the UK work a average of 6.5 hours a week unpaid overtime .THis is known in the NHS as "goodwill"and if the nurses got "arsey" about things they could withdraw this "goodwill",lucky for us and their employers they have not yet.

On a sadder note,I do believe a persons GP and 2 psycreatric doctors have to assess a person for sectioning ,it would be open to bribery,influance if it was just one person

Who's talking about nurses? We are talking about lab testing. It doesn't happen. No-one in the NHS labs is allowed to work without authority.
Just give me the hospital and the department and I'll follow it up.

And post a few links huh?


joe

 

[joe-90]

Do you know nuffink?

Why do you persistently take the antagonistic stance of claiming that someone who disagrees with you knows nothing?

When the argument is lost - the abuse begins.

And then it gets deleted and you get scolded, viz:

I would like to know why his post hasn't been deleted and mine has? Well?


joe

Moderator Note

Your post was deleted because the way it was worded was offensive and deliberately so in order to provoke an argumentative reply. You seem incapable of taking part in a discussion in a way that doesn't insult or wind people up, despite several warnings over the past weeks. You seem intent on spoiling subjects which are being debated by posting in the manner you do. It will not be tolerated, so i suggest you take on board the comments and change the way you post. The alternative is that posts which in our view are provocative or fall outside of the rules will simply be deleted. I hope that explains the stance we are taking and it wont be explained any further or again

My post was deleted because it mentioned the holocaust - and that might upset the forum advertisers.

joe

 

[splinter]

Stop avoiding the questions I've asked of you.

If an employee is off duty and injures someone because they chose to continue working in an unofficial capacity - who is liable?

If the employee is injured doing work that is not authorised by their employer are they covered by workers compo?

Would the Unions allow workers to work without pay?

Well?


joe

The employer would be liable under the principles of Vicarious liability. this makes the employer liable for anything their employee does within the scope of their employment. What this means is that unless a person does something they are not employed to do, eg if the nurse tried to fix an electrical fault and hurt someone or an electrician tried to treat a patient, they wouldn't be personally liable for a mistake.

In this context, ie a hospital the nurse would still be on the work premises and acting within the scope of his or her employment. The fact that they were not getting paid for it would be a separate matter between them and their employer and not relevant to the issue of liability between the hospital and it's patient if the nurse acted negligently. The hospital would owe a duty of care to the patient and the fact that the nurse wasn't getting paid would probably increase the liability of the hospital because it could be argued that by failing to adequately staff and run it's wards the hospital increased the risk to the patient

The nurse if injured doing work that was unauthorised, eg fixing a leaking pipe wouldn't be entitled to compensation because it is outside the scope of her employment. However working unpaid overtime because of understaffing is not unauthorised work. The nurses professional duty to the patients probably overrides her obligations to the hospital to leave at the end of her shift. In fact by forcing the nurse to remain on duty the hospital might increase it's liablity to the nurse for any injury. She would argue that the hospital had failed to create a safe working enviroment by forcing her into a situation where the risk to the patients prevented her leaving thus creating a situation where due to her fatigue she was more likely to have an accident. That would be in addition to any other evidence of liability on the hospitals part, ie a double whammy

So to summarise, everyone would sue the a**e off the hospital. The nurse and patient would retire to the Bahamas (or more likely Skegness) with their compensation and the tax payer would foot most of the bill

Joe,
Tis post answers you're questions,for some reason you have ignored it .
I also read through reams of infomation on the internet and it seems that nurses in the UK work a average of 6.5 hours a week unpaid overtime .THis is known in the NHS as "goodwill"and if the nurses got "arsey" about things they could withdraw this "goodwill",lucky for us and their employers they have not yet.

On a sadder note,I do believe a persons GP and 2 psycreatric doctors have to assess a person for sectioning ,it would be open to bribery,influance if it was just one person

Who's talking about nurses? We are talking about lab testing. It doesn't happen. No-one in the NHS labs is allowed to work without authority.
Just give me the hospital and the department and I'll follow it up.

And post a few links huh?


joe

I beleive what Pickles wrote used the job title" nurse" as a example ,this could be replaced with any job title within the context of the NHS .
I would also like to point out that you have used various job titles including "nurse to support you're arguement

 

[joe-90]

Give me the details and I'll contact the hospital.

The original poster has headed for the hills because he knows he's been rumbled.

No point arguing until I can contact the department concerned.


joe

 

[splinter]

Give me the details and I'll contact the hospital.

The original poster has headed for the hills because he knows he's been rumbled.

No point arguing until I can contact the department concerned.


joe

Come on now JOE is this the writing of a adult ,OOh sQd it YOU'VE won.












w

 

[joe-90]

I always win. It's just the way it is.


joe

 

[Thermo]

ok then, try this number for the management and policy department at charring cross hospital and ask them. Please tell us what they say

020 7627 9234

 

[joe-90]

ok then, try this number for the management and policy department at charring cross hospital and ask them. Please tell us what they say

020 7627 9234

That isn't where she works.

 

[Softus]

Who's talking about nurses?

It's no good saying I'm a 'know-all' when you know that I am right.

A nurse (or other health worker) cannot treat a patient when she is off duty. End of story.

If the nurse is continuing to work unpaid then the patient would have to sue the nurse personally.

And this one's a beauty:

I don't know what the law states.

And here's a big lie:

My post was deleted because it mentioned the holocaust - and that might upset the forum advertisers.

...given that it's referring to this:

Your post was deleted because the way it was worded was offensive and deliberately so in order to provoke an argumentative reply. You seem incapable of taking part in a discussion in a way that doesn't insult or wind people up, despite several warnings over the past weeks.

 

[paulbrown]

Do I take it you all agree that the NHS are wasting money by having meetings in private hotels then?

I agree, but I think you ought to start a new topic rather than hijack this one

 

[masona]

ok then, try this number for the management and policy department at charring cross hospital and ask them. Please tell us what they say

020 7627 9234

That isn't where she works.

What difference does that make?